High Court
Case Details
(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:17) (cid:17)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:17)(cid:13) (cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:5)(cid:17) (cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:7) (cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:13)(cid:13)’()’(cid:1)*+(cid:1)(cid:3)$(cid:11)(cid:3),(cid:3)(cid:21)%(cid:3) (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:19)-&(cid:29)(cid:3).(cid:28)(cid:3)/(cid:29)(cid:31)010.(cid:30)(cid:25)(cid:3))*(cid:27)*+(cid:27)(cid:1)*(cid:1)(cid:2) (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) !(cid:23)(cid:3) (cid:27)(cid:27)(cid:27)(cid:15)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:13)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:1) (cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:3) (cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:17)(cid:22) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:6) (cid:17)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:24)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:23)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:15)(cid:11) (cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:17)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:13) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:27)(cid:27)(cid:27)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:23)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:23)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:7)(cid:11) (cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:26)(cid:18)(cid:22)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:13)(cid:27)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:23)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:15) (cid:13)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:18)(cid:13)(cid:17)(cid:13)
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Ravi Gakhar, Advocate for Present: Mr te Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate Mr for the petitioner. for Mr Mr. Nitin Meel, Advocate for Mr. K.B. Raheja, Advocate Mr for respondent No.1. for Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. Mr """"(cid:3) (cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:23) (cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:18)(cid:13)(cid:17)(cid:13)#(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:27)(cid:3)$(cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:17)(cid:22)% 1. This revision petition has been p Thi nt preferred against the judgment dated 09.11.201 2011 passed by learned Addition rh tional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide whi hich, judgment of conviction and ce nd order on quantum of sentence dated 04.11.200 2009 passed by learned Addition te, tional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib hib in a complaint case filed und le under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ct, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as as ‘NI Act’) have been upheld. 2. The petitioner was sentenced as und The under: (cid:11)(cid:28)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:31)(cid:29)(cid:3) (cid:23)(cid:29)(cid:30)&(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:31)(cid:29)(cid:3) 138 NI Act RI for 01 year with a payment of fine to un of h a fine of Rs.5,000/; in default of undergo RI for 02 months. 3. Complainant Punjab State Ware Co d, arehousing Corporation Limited, Fatehgarh Sahi ahib through Surjit Singh Wareh he rehouse Manager, has filed the MANISHA 2025.02.17 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment (cid:10)(cid:13)(cid:13)’()’(cid:1)*+(cid:1)(cid:3)$ $(cid:11)(cid:3),(cid:3)(cid:21)%(cid:3) (cid:1)(cid:3) (cid:3) present complai laint under section 138 of the N or Negotiable Instrument Act (for short ‘Act’) ag against accused Sukhdev Kumar er ar and Chaman Lal (petitioner herein) partners ers of M/s Shree Rice Mills, sil s, Sanghol (Ucha Pind), Tehsil Khamanon, Dis istrict Fatehgarh Sahib on the gr 99 ground that in the year 1998;99 complainant gav gave 97313 bags weighing 63253. or 53.4 M.T. to the accused firm for milling purpose ses. The accused firm returned 85 of 85794 bags i.e. 55766.10 Μ.T. of milled rice to th the complainant and 11519 bags dy gs weighing 7487.35 M.T. paddy remained with th the accused firm. It is alleged of, ged that in lieu of the price of, remaining padd ddy the accused firm issued a ch ed cheque No.CA/24;510917 dated 31.12.2000 for or Rs. 17,00,000/; in favour of t ng f the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Ch Chandigarh of State Bank of Pati di. atiala, branch Khamanon Mandi. The complainan ant presented the above said cheq er eque on 01.02.2001 to its banker i.e. State Bank k of Patiala, branch Khamanon M its n Mandi to credit the same in its account No.71 713. However the said cheque he ue was returned back to the complainant by by the banker on 01.02.2001 with at ith the memo with remarks that there are ‘Insuff ufficient Funds’ in the account. It i id It is alleged that on receipt of said cheque back be being dishonoured, complainant h eir t has issued notice through their counsel Sh. Ha Hardip Singh, Advocate on 07. of 7.02.2001 to make payment of dishonoured che cheque within 15 days from the r he e receipt of notice. However, the payment was no not made. Hence, the present comp mplaint. 4. The petitioner was convicted and The ed d sentenced vide judgment dated 04.11.2009 pas assed by learned trial Court, wh by which has also been upheld by learned lower A Appellate Court vide judgment da dated 09.11.2011. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Lea ng contends that he is not assailing the impugned ju judgment of conviction dated 09. ts 09.11.2011 on merits and restricts his prayer to m modification of the order on quan he uantum of sentence to that of the MANISHA 2025.02.17 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment (cid:10)(cid:13)(cid:13)’()’(cid:1)*+(cid:1)(cid:3)$ $(cid:11)(cid:3),(cid:3)(cid:21)%(cid:3) )(cid:3) (cid:3) sentence already ady undergone by the petitioner. 12 As per order dated 18.04.2012 passed by this is Court, petitioner has undergone an one actual sentence of more than five months out ut of total sentence of one year. 6. (cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:1) (cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9), learned State counsel (cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4) or assisted by learned counsel for respondent No. o.1 opposes the prayer of the petit as etitioner as learned trial Court has passed a well;r reasoned judgment based on co ce correct appreciation of evidence available on rec record, which has also been upheld e eld by the learned lower Appellate Court and as suc such, he does not deserve any lenie niency. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the I ha rd the parties and perused the record with their able a e assistance. 8. In (cid:20)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:6)(cid:22)(cid:6)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:6)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:27)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:3) In ee (cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:3)(cid:28)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:29)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:15)(cid:30)(cid:31)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:18)(cid:3)(cid:14) (cid:17), a Three Judge Bench o of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of urt has opined that awarding of sentence is not ot a mere formality in criminal nd al cases. When a minimum and maximum term rm is prescribed by the statute of te with regard to the period of sentence, a disc iscretionary element is vested in t ch in the Court. Background of each case, which inc includes factors like gravity of the he the offence, manner in which the offence is com ommitted, age of the accused, ile d, should be considered while determining the the quantum of sentence and thi ed this discretion is not to be used arbitrarily or wh whimsically. After assessing all re ce l relevant factors, proper sentence should be award arded bearing in mind the princip re ciple of proportionality to ensure the sentence is is neither excessively harsh nor d nt. r does it come across as lenient. Further, a two J o Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supr (cid:6)(cid:27)(cid:6)(cid:3) upreme Court in (cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:6)!(cid:23)"(cid:6)(cid:27)(cid:6)(cid:3) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3) (cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:3) (cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:3) (cid:10)(cid:11) (cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:3) (cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:3) (cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:3) (cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:3) (cid:16)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19), has rei of reiterated that the imposition of sentence also se serves a social purpose as it acts he acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise t se the damage caused not only to th ty o the victim but also to the society at large. The law law in this regard is well settled th on that opportunities of reformation MANISHA 2025.02.17 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment (cid:10)(cid:13)(cid:13)’()’(cid:1)*+(cid:1)(cid:3)$ $(cid:11)(cid:3),(cid:3)(cid:21)%(cid:3) ((cid:3) (cid:3) must be grante nted and such discretion is to b all be exercised by evaluating all attending circum cumstances of each case by notici he icing the nature of the crime, the manner in whic hich the crime was committed and to and the conduct of the accused to strike a balance ce between the efficacy of law and of and the chances of reformation of the accused. 9. A perusal of the judgment of convi A p ial viction passed by the learned trial Court indicates es no perversity in its findings an ct and the same is based on correct appreciation of e of evidence available on record. M he Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has no not assailed the judgment of conv as onviction on merits, rather he has restricted his pra prayer only qua modification of qu quantum of sentence. 10. The present complaint is of the ye The as year 2007 and the petitioner has been suffering g the agony of protracted trial is ial for last 18 years. Since his conviction, the p e petitioner has grown into law;ab ve abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. e. As per order dated 18.04.2012 er 2 passed by this Court, petitioner has undergone a e actual sentence of more than fiv ce five months out of total sentence of one year, in th n the instant case. 11. Accordingly, this Court is of the o Acc he e opinion that it would be in the interest of justic stice, if the sentence awarded to t he o the petitioner is reduced to the period already u y undergone by him. 12. Consequently, the present petition Con
Decision
ng on is disposed of in the following terms: (i) the judgment dated 09.11.2 ed 1.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fat Ad he atehgarh Sahib, affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, jud ce d, however, the order of sentence dated 04.11.2009(cid:3) is modified to t dat of o the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 01 year rigo m ear along with default mechanism MANISHA 2025.02.17 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment (cid:10)(cid:13)(cid:13)’()’(cid:1)*+(cid:1)(cid:3)$ $(cid:11)(cid:3),(cid:3)(cid:21)%(cid:3) (cid:2)(cid:3) (cid:3) awarded to the petitioner is redu awa ce duced to the period of sentence already undergone by him subject alre as ect to payment of Rs.10,000/; as fine to be deposited in the Court. fine (ii) The petitioner is directed to (ii) in to deposit the amount of fine in the trial Court within one month the of nth from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and in cer of in case of default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall be liable fine nd ble to be taken into custody and made to undergo rigorous imprison ma onment for one month. 13. Pending miscellaneous applicati Pen ation(s), (s) if any, also stand(s) disposed of.(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:1)*(cid:1)(cid:2) (cid:3) (cid:16)-(cid:30)2-34(cid:3))*#(cid:3)(cid:1)*(cid:1) (cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:9)(cid:1) (cid:3) (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)$(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:18)(cid:13)(cid:17)(cid:13)% (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:19)(cid:9)(cid:8) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) Whether speaking/reasoned (i) (cid:3) ii)(cid:3) Whether reportable (ii) Yes/No Yes/No(cid:3) MANISHA 2025.02.17 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment